A test of the PBS?

Although cruel, PBS wasn't meant to be flexible. It is what it is and does not carry with it any discretion which goes above and beyond the published guidelines. It's a very sad case for this guy but as others have said he should have been more careful planning for such a thing.

While I agree that this guy probably should have been careful, I'm not a huge fan of "because I said so" style of regulation. If the inflexibility is there to serve the purpose of the PBS system then it's one thing. If it's there as an abitrary/punitive measure, it's another.

This guy could be a one-time exception, or he could be just the first or most eggregious case of otherwise perfectly qualified candidates getting snagged on these regulations that don't realistically reflect their worthiness as PBS visa holders or potential visa holders. If it's the former, it's still tragic but acceptable. If it's the latter, then this incident should be an impetus to re-examine the PBS qualification criteria to see if they suit the purpose for which they were designed.

I really hope that this makes sense.

First of all, he's not being deported, he's being removed.

Secondly, he didn't meet the rules, so the refusal was correct (legally).  Unless the Court of Sessions turns around and allows his further appeal on grounds of unreasonableness I can't see this succeeding.

Third, I think it is appalling that there is no discretion in this.  I have had clients who have gone under the maintenence requirement for less than one day who have been refused, and it is just disgusting.  This points system was introduced because it was supposed to make everything more fair.  It's not fair, it's shabby.

I jump in on that side...it's his own fault really. £800 for 3 months in the bank, with all that is riding on it you would think that someone would be more vigilant to ensure the future of his family. How can you reward someone for that?

We don't know how this happened.  Was there fraud on his account?  Did his employers not pay him in time?  Did his mortgage payment suddenly increase? Did his council tax increase?  Was a direct debit accidentally taken twice?  Or did he mistakenly think, as many do, that his wife's money could be used as his maintenence?  Without knowing the story, you have to give the guy a break.

If they do let him stay then it could set precedent where the line would keep getting pushed further & futher back from the limit. And it seems that he's been here for 9 years, even under the HSMP program he would have qualified for ILR by now, though not having the information of what type of visas he's had & for how long that is pure speculation.

This rule has only just been introduced.  It is patently obvious that the rule is unfair and counter productive (unless there is an active aim of trying make lots of people leave).  In which case, yes, allowing this appeal will set a precedent, and hopefully get them to change the bloody rule.

Vicky (crossed with Mort)

Thanks Vicky, that's what I was trying to get at, that this case will test whether the rules for maintenance will stand as they are. As for using the word deported, I was just paraphrasing the headline, which is obviously using a more emotive word to get their point across. I doubt most people reading the story will understand the difference between removal and deportation.

I know it is the phrase the media use, but they are dicks, we are not!


Vicky

I know it is the phrase the media use, but they are dicks, we are not!


Vicky

Ok that made me laugh really hard.